Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Popeyesays]

Or maybe we could leave them to take this on faith, much as others of us take the virgin birth of Jesus.

I only suggested it because it would be an amazing thing to find traces of such a battle, bronze and iron would survive. When such a survey was performed at the site of the death camp at Belzec mass graves were found and a series of core samplings turned up evidence of the burials, burnings and re=burials of the burned remains.

It did much to destroy the organized holocaust denial organizations--that and the recantation of David Irving in a German court.

Regards,
Scott

 

[!Fluffy!]

You know what I wonder? What you get from posting these sort of things? Satisfaction? Pride? Hopefullness?

What exactly is the point of it?

Do you hope we will abandon our 'silly' faith and join yours? Is is because we believe in it?

Honestly, why do it?

Honestly, why didn't you answer my post the first time you asked that question?
And *again* -- what does it have to do with anything at all we are talking about here?

But don't you see Luna? The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was real and factual, they have the Bible to prove it. The Book of Mormon is just a false document and doesn't prove anything.

First of all, the virgin birth isn't the topic here is it?

And, I thought you were a Christian too. My mistake.

 

[Bishka]

Honestly, why didn't you answer my post the first time you asked that question?
And *again* -- what does it have to do with anything at all we are talking about here?

Well, my fellow Christian how about you kindly point it out to me again.

It matters to me, humor me, will you? Just answer it.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I only suggested it because it would be an amazing thing to find traces of such a battle, bronze and iron would survive. When such a survey was performed at the site of the death camp at Belzec mass graves were found and a series of core samplings turned up evidence of the burials, burnings and re=burials of the burned remains.

It did much to destroy the organized holocaust denial organizations--that and the recantation of David Irving in a German court.

Regards,
Scott

I agree with you 100% Scott. It would destroy my Hill Cumorah argument, that's for sure.

Here is the problem, .

1. I made the statement that I rejected once and for all the authenticity of the BoM based on the Hill Cumorah alone, (and that I rejected Smith as a Prophet because of the Egyptian papyri and Kinderhook plates debacles, but that was another discussion).

2. I explained that based on worldwide demographics studies of that era -- and a lack of archeological and DNA evidence -- the idea that an advanced civilization of millions of people did battle or even existed in upstate NY at that time was absurd.

3. Deep Shadow agreed.

But then Deep Shadow said that along with other Mormons there is a belief Cumorah in NY is not where the battles leaving 2+million dead took place.

Unfortunately there is no scriptural basis for that idea, nor support from the church at large. From Joseph Smith onward church Presidents, historians and Apostles have stated unequivocally that Hill Cumorah is the place where these battles took place, the same place where the plates were hidden - in Upstate NY.


Mormon 6:2 ( And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah , and there we could give them battle. )

It appears either 230,000 or 2.3 million died. I'm unsure of the math there. Either way there is no evidence of any battle in the area, as there is no evidence of all the other things which have been much-discussed in this thread already, from no DNA evidence of people of Jewish descent living here in pre-Columbian times, to horses and chariots, wheat, the use of steel, etc. not to mention the implausibility of civilizations of millions of people for which there is no archeological evidence in the region.

So this is problematic for the church, which would understandably be resistant to any attempt to excavate or do further physical examination of the site. At least until they come up with a better explanation for all the evidentiary contradictions.

 

[Bathsheba]

Hi beckysoup61,

You know what I wonder? What you get from posting these sort of things? Satisfaction? Pride? Hopefullness?

I wonder why you wonder? What do you get from reading these sorts of threads where people post these sorts of things? Indignation? Confirmation bias? Distraction?
​

What exactly is the point of it?

What do you think is the point of it and why is important that people tell you what there motive is?
​

Do you hope we will abandon our 'silly' faith and join yours? Is it because we believe in it?

Does the mormon church want people to join their church? Isn’t that why they send missionaries to knock on people’s doors? If you belong to a church that wants to get people to join their church, why wonder about people that might want you to change your church?
​

Honestly, why do it?

Honestly, why not appreciate the two way street?

Behold, I say unto you, first naval gaze the contents of thine own belly and then ye shall perceive the innards of thine enemy. And if ye shall courageously reveal thyself and demonstrate a non-contracted spirit, yea, even that spirit which is not perceived as desiring to manipulate after receiving thine enemies motives, verily, thus saith some cool Internet stranger, more will be revealed.

​

 

[SoyBeane]

It is clear, that the majority of the Christian community will never accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God until real archeological and geological evidences can definitely show proof of BoM peoples and places existed like the Bible does of its peoples and places... As a believer of Jesus, I enjoy reading the BoM daily myself and find some good spiritual truths (Wheat & Tares) in it... I see the BoM as a Christian fiction book like the Left Behind books series... Completely Blind Faith in anyone or any book to be true based only on a physical sensation after a prayer is foolish and leads only to Demonic deception...:no:

 

[Bishka]

I wonder why you wonder? What do you get from reading these sorts of threads where people post these sorts of things? Indignation? Confirmation bias? Distraction?

What do I get from these sort of threads? Nothing much other then people who are intent on telling us we are wrong.

What do you think is the point of it and why is important that people tell you what there motive is?

I'd rather respond to to someone who is actually seeking knowledge about a subject then to someone who is intent on telling us a number of things (i.e. we are a cult, we don't worship the 'right' Jesus, etc., etc. etc). There have been several members of RF, that have respectfully debated these same subjects with us, and because they weren't trying to 'prove us wrong', there wasn't really an issue there. They were just trying to learn more and decide for themselves.
​

Does the mormon church want people to join their church? Isn’t that why they send missionaries to knock on people’s doors? If you belong to a church that wants to get people to join their church, why wonder about people that might want you to change your church?​

The LDS Church wants to bring people closer to Jesus Christ and to what we believe to be the full-truth about the Gospel.



It's clear you don't have a whit of understanding why I even posed those questions, and it doesn't seem like you even care, but then again, I expected that. I can usually tell when people want to learn instead of tell people they are wrong, and you really don't seem to be one.
​

 

[Bishka]

Anywho, I'm done in this thread. It's been 41 pages and nothing other then name-calling, insults, etc. has been achieved. Good luck to the rest of you, if anyone has any real questions, the LDS DIR is always open.

 

[Bathsheba]

I'd rather respond to to someone who is actually seeking knowledge about a subject then to someone who is intent on telling us a number of things (i.e. we are a cult, we don't worship the 'right' Jesus, etc., etc. etc). There have been several members of RF, that have respectfully debated these same subjects with us, and because they weren't trying to 'prove us wrong', there wasn't really an issue there. They were just trying to learn more and decide for themselves.

Becky, I can appreciate why you would rather respond to somebody interested in learning about what you believe. I totally understand why it is nicer to have a conversation with somebody that isn't fixin to change your thinkin. But here's the rub, given that this is your preference, and since you willingly read this thread, you put yourself at risk of having your preferences denied when the OP asks the question: "So where do you stand?" Do you really think it is reasonable to ask people where they stand and then when they answer the question complain that they are answering the question? Surely you are not saying that the only people that can answer the question are the people that just want to learn from you. No, I don't think you are saying that. But what I can't figure out is why you think people can't try to convince you that your thinking is wrong - why is that so terribly offensive to you (or perhaps "annoying" is a better word to use, or perplexing ... or perhaps you can insert the right descriptor)? I'm guessing that the only motive you ascribe to the people that you perceive want to change your thinking is a terribly negative motive. These people (people like me?) are bad people and as bad people they should just go away, is that close to being true? Maybe you don't think I am bad, maybe you just think I am ill-motivated and you want me to confess that I am ill-motivated and/or realize that I am ill-motivated. If I just declared my black heart that would balance the RF universe. You already know my "type", you easily dismiss my ilk, do you know why it is so important that I confess my sin to you? Ya see, I always get the feeling that whenever you ask "why do you challenge my beliefs" that what you want is way to discredit my argument by discrediting me - but that's just a feeling and it might not be enlightened. Maybe you are just awestruck that somebody would find your beliefs terribly problematic.

 

[Bishka]

Maybe you are just awestruck that somebody would find your beliefs terribly problematic.

Hardly darling, I found them a bit problematic at one time in my life as well.

 

[Katzpur]

It is clear, that the majority of the Christian community will never accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God until real archeological and geological evidences can definitely show proof of BoM peoples and places existed like the Bible does of its peoples and places... As a believer of Jesus, I enjoy reading the BoM daily myself and find some good spiritual truths (Wheat & Tares) in it... I see the BoM as a Christian fiction book like the Left Behind books series... Completely Blind Faith in anyone or any book to be true based only on a physical sensation after a prayer is foolish and leads only to Demonic deception...:no:

I have long since decided not to let people's opinions about my beliefs be a major source of concern, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to prove anything to anybody. The only question I have for you, SoyBeane, is what is your faith based on? My guess is that your belief in the Bible as God's word has very little to do with what Old World archeology has turned up supporting it. Obviously, it's going to be easier to prove that Jerusalem existed than it is that Zarahemla existed because it's history is continuous.

Biblical scholars were perplexed for years, for example, about the fact that no skeletons of lions had ever been found in Israel dating back to ancient times. They'd certainly been looking for them for a lot longer than anybody's been looking for evidence of horses in America, and yet the first two lion skeletons were not found until 1983. Surely you're not going to tell me that the absense of such evidence made you doubt that the Bible was what it claims to be.

 

[DeepShadow]

Agreed, Mormons and non Mormons should not use Nibley or Tanner as a resource.

I don't think that Sandra Tanner should be excluded simply because of bias. If she cites peer-reviewed sources for her claims, which can be researched for confirmation, then her offerings should be accepted regardless of the messenger's bias. The problem is that Nibley cites peer-reviewed sources for most of his claims, and from what I've seen Sandra Tanner and her husband either don't cite, cite things that don't need to be cited, or just cite other anti-Mormon works.

Bathsheba has unintentionally identified the problem here, by talking about using Nibley as a "source" or a "resource." In the parlance of debate, Nibley is the latter but not the former. He's a messenger, but the message is from Knudson and all the other non-Mormon sources that he cites. When someone asks me for my "source data," I'm supposed to cite Knudson, not Nibley. the term for Nibley is an "intermediary source" or just a "resource."

There are plenty of LDS scholars who I refuse to use as sources, not because they are biased (we all are) but because they do a bad job of citing their sources. Milton R. Hunter, for example, is not half so good as Nibley, and for that reason I usually flip through his footnotes and go straight to the sources.

But there's the rub: in the end, I don't think it's fair to critics of the church to exclude Tanner and Nibley as "sources," because I can continue to use Nibley as a "resource" without citing him. I would just go on Lexus-Nexus and look up all of Nibley's sources and cite them individually. But if Sandra Tanner has actually done her homework, I'd like her to get credit, too. Bring it on, Sandy!

 

[Bathsheba]

I don't think that Sandra Tanner should be excluded simply because of bias. If she cites peer-reviewed sources for her claims, which can be researched for confirmation, then her offerings should be accepted regardless of the messenger's bias. The problem is that Nibley cites peer-reviewed sources for most of his claims, and from what I've seen Sandra Tanner and her husband either don't cite, cite things that don't need to be cited, or just cite other anti-Mormon works.

Bathsheba has unintentionally identified the problem here, by talking about using Nibley as a "source" or a "resource." In the parlance of debate, Nibley is the latter but not the former. He's a messenger, but the message is from Knudson and all the other non-Mormon sources that he cites. When someone asks me for my "source data," I'm supposed to cite Knudson, not Nibley. the term for Nibley is an "intermediary source" or just a "resource."

There are plenty of LDS scholars who I refuse to use as sources, not because they are biased (we all are) but because they do a bad job of citing their sources. Milton R. Hunter, for example, is not half so good as Nibley, and for that reason I usually flip through his footnotes and go straight to the sources.

But there's the rub: in the end, I don't think it's fair to critics of the church to exclude Tanner and Nibley as "sources," because I can continue to use Nibley as a "resource" without citing him. I would just go on Lexus-Nexus and look up all of Nibley's sources and cite them individually. But if Sandra Tanner has actually done her homework, I'd like her to get credit, too. Bring it on, Sandy!

I don't take issue with anything you have said here.

I need to do a better job making my playful replies more obvious.

 

[blueman]

Just a personal opinion here, but the premise that Joseph Smith was a prophet is a stretch at best.

 

[!Fluffy!]

It is clear, that the majority of the Christian community will never accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God until real archeological and geological evidences can definitely show proof of BoM peoples and places existed like the Bible does of its peoples and places... As a believer of Jesus, I enjoy reading the BoM daily myself and find some good spiritual truths (Wheat & Tares) in it... I see the BoM as a Christian fiction book like the Left Behind books series... Completely Blind Faith in anyone or any book to be true based only on a physical sensation after a prayer is foolish and leads only to Demonic deception...:no:

Just a personal opinion here, but the premise that Joseph Smith was a prophet is a stretch at best.

yes, that seems to be the consensus.

 

[Katzpur]

yes, that seems to be the consensus.

Well, I'm certainly glad that's settled.

 

[SoyBeane]

I have long since decided not to let people's opinions about my beliefs be a major source of concern, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to prove anything to anybody. The only question I have for you, SoyBeane, is what is your faith based on? My guess is that your belief in the Bible as God's word has very little to do with what Old World archeology has turned up supporting it. Obviously, it's going to be easier to prove that Jerusalem existed than it is that Zarahemla existed because it's history is continuous.

Biblical scholars were perplexed for years, for example, about the fact that no skeletons of lions had ever been found in Israel dating back to ancient times. They'd certainly been looking for them for a lot longer than anybody's been looking for evidence of horses in America, and yet the first two lion skeletons were not found until 1983. Surely you're not going to tell me that the absense of such evidence made you doubt that the Bible was what it claims to be.

Yes, I do believe the Bible to be inspired by God and base my spiritual beliefs on it... I have also seen the power of God in my life and the life of others to know He's real... But, I don't consider it to be as a 100% accurate history or science book either... The problem I see with the BoM is that there is nothing in it that can be Archeologically or Geologically verified anywhere in the Americas... If the Bible had the same problems, I wouldn't find fault in anyone for not believing it...

Katzpur, can you tell me why anyone should consider Joseph Smith's revelations as truely from God over those of Fatima, Lourdes, or even Conyers,GA.. Anyway, I do consider LDS to be brothers and sisters in Christ...

 

[w00t]

I thought I read somwhere that Smith had been totally discredited?

 

[Melissa G]

As far as anybody is concerned with a rational mind, that indeed is the case. Well , when I'm home seeing that DS doesn't mind, I'll repost the Tanner article, if I can find it again lol.

Melissa G

 

[DeepShadow]

I thought I read somwhere that Smith had been totally discredited?

I read the same thing about Jesus, somewhere. I've also read somewhere that Men in Black are in league with alien invaders, and that aliens build the pyramids.

Smith has been discredited, in the minds of some, but that's begging the question. Cite a source for his discreditation if you want to join the debate.